Facing a tricky situation? Having a choice or confronting a delicate solution to ride…? Don’t mess with a “yes/no” issue. Why?

the simple “two simple choices” solution is in fact a lazy way: you won’t take the chance to really discover the subject and fade into easiness

the yes option means you want to see after, and won’t take time to mesure the real impact of any kind of option

the no option makes you a coward, who doesn’t want to take a chance to improve the whole problem

there’s no questioning about what you do and what you could do more and better

In fact, only many iterates with a word like “why” will lead you further frontiers. It forces you to innovate in your mindset thinking, your process design and your search for disruptive orbit-shifting innovation.

Can you imagine stay in a consensus, a straight line where everybody fights in a red ocean? Can you figure out how many disruptions started with a complete interrogation: resources, capabilities, know-how, following stratégies…?
Only those who face real gravity and fight against it, can imagine the next designed solutions, according to principles:

detect a positive inflexion point in your business and analyze it

always imagine solutions for extreme conditions, not business as usual

study the theorical best instead of “best possible”: push you to borderlines will confront you to unknown and survivance tips

transform the input-output equation to a next level

You can find some of these elements, largelly commented and challenged in the “good to great” book by Collins here. The non questioning on deepest elements drives you to a lazy dead-end answer. And your customers worth more, if you want to keep them by your side, before they leave you.

And you, as a manager or a CEO, will you dare the complete review or will you stay in your comfort zone?

Only 20 years from now, WWW was a bulk disruption on how we live, consume, search, think and act. As cycles gear up, it may be the deepest change since…the birth of printing, the “renaissance” era, or more recently, industrialisation. The Internet has created new values, new debates, new democracies, new wealth, new scarcities, new information sharing and above all, a kind of new economy. And the story could stop, steadily hold a strange balance between users and infrastructures/sites builders. In fact, the sleepiness effect of this large revolution shows us, in a short term, the worst faces of Schumpeter’s doom of innovation. The best disruption effects mean to cut off any kind of intermediation, throwing away millions of jobs, and by the way, millions of lives. If WWW brings us, technology speaking, the best of information, education and equality in the world, that efficient technology erases more than it helps us, in the short term. Do many tasks for free, sharp and straight, instead on holding man assistance.
Oh.
You probably mean that machines and technology need more and more jobs to build them. True, but probably not the same profiles than the ones fired in this giganteous turnaround. Training and recovering another job? Too old, not flexible, not relevant could you be answered.

But over all, if we stare at the revenue sharing of that economy, we could see a scarce race of “winner take it all” actors, who share their revenue with stocks’ holder more than with you. Nothing else to take a look at GAFAM’s world to see the market cap is perfectly valued with the network and the content. Me. You. Everybody who posts something, someday. The whole value of these networks is nothing else than content, freely and daily published by you an me. Former days were journalists, photographers, editors, producers, distributors, who, in their way, were doing their part of the job, truly paied for that. Now that content is free, posted, twitted, re-twitted in seconds all around the world, who pays for that? Brands. But revenues never come to your pocket, but in the digital oligarchy’s one. Charming period where some “jobs” or tasks always exist, but now are unpaid. The Free economy is obviously interesting as a citizen or a consumer, but we are also employees or economic agent, driven to work to live. And that “freeness” may be our death idol. Is Internet really the answer?

It’s no doubt that the global balance between creation and destruction is far worst than we think. And there’s still no real “huge implementation” of #AI yet…Let’s figure out when many boring tasks will be realized by bots, coding minds, automatic processes like drive, care, produce, publish, deliver…Build bots? But when bots will build bots, what’s next?

This disruption fever may drive us to schizophrenic behavior, with a global rejection of progress, protecting us from…disablation. Switch on, swith off. Someday a robot will push the button for us, to unplug us. Bye. It’s no sense leading to such issue, wasting the best of technology for humankind economic survival. We’ll be “un-revealed”, in an “un” society: unstores, unusual, unhierarchic and holacratic world. Where winner-take-it-all pleases themselve, inventing a mirror world where fashion leads to an “un-anything”. This status is now so true than ever. Value is in the “un-face” of things to unfold deepest desires and hold privacy, scarcity and exclusive vision on things (and people). They know how to cope with it, and we pay it by our blindness and trustiness.

If GAFAM make a lot of money on contents they never create, why don’t they pay the real price for this new kind of (free) suppliers that are friends, members and so long? They push more free tools than ever, to slave us, collect data and make money wherever but our side. That’s the game it seems, hard game, sometimes and in the end, mortal one. Not funny in fact, and the worst is that few have this global awareness of it. We, as human give a lot of energy to dig our own economic grave.

I don’t know what’s your actual behavior and consumption of TV, but we can all say there’s probably the biggest revolution since Internet. We used to consider TV as « a whole set, environment of entertainment, emotion and information for the family.

Despite different revolutions like new consumption (VOD, OTT, catchup TV…), new wirings (DSL, DTH, DTT…), new quality (HD, 3D), TV remains a matter of contents. Believe me, as I worked for more than 10 years, in pay TV environments.

And, yes, it is still a question of content. To inform, entertain or turn upside down. It’s always contents that drive audience and make the money business. But since users started to generate contents (UGC) with social tools, the power between broadcasters, content producers and audience has been completely blended, from a steady flow, one at a time, to multi-producing anytime, anywhere, any device. And guess where we focus most of our time now?

content producers, e.g. who try to produce high potential contents and sustainable rights to engage in a longer lifetime, that is, more revenues

advertisers and brands (here there’s no change but the increasing need to hold revenues and efficiency, anytime!

broadcasters, e.g. whose job is keeping the light on overnight and increase revenue due to more audience from advertisers.

Fair game isn’t it? I’m probably writing a piece of this article on my laptop, while watching TV, sending twits
to engage with the actual TV show. And it’s not a question of the Y generation or being a millennial, as I’m neither.

The fact is that, socialize relations, sectors, or industries, means tumble down the easy flow of former
relations because:

You won’t be able to know how many times and how long, the former viewer is now, while he can zap, play, change the content – with one finger

You won’t be able to value advertising and the guarantee for brands to invest in big channels, another effect of the long tail, created with the web

You probably will be obliged to change, quick and dirty, programming because of twitter #attacks, ongoing, throwing away all your programming strategy

The whole investments you do in long term programs is turned into a short formats of videos, soaps, viewed, reviewed, cached, and screened wherever but the TV

Where the web brought freedom and creativity, television lost traction moreover in youngest generation who nearly were born, without TV addiction. Many years ago, most of us believed that social TV was nothing more than bringing the web on TV screens and bloomed many connected TVs with new interfaces and web browsing.

Social means individualism because the essence of participating is the collaboration and the addition of multiple individual shares, talks, and debates. Soon (or already now?), you’ll be able to have an individual end for your favorite soap. The one you’ll choose, the one you’ll have, your end.

In some way, where technologies brought us the ubiquity of TV everywhere (DTH, Cable, xG Mobile, DTT, etc.), social brought us our network that awakes us more, engages us to participate, and allows us to be more aware of what’s going on.

In some way, we’re more actors than we think. We create the new content experience we finally want to see. What is more important in marketing than to have the choice to buy something we REALLY want?

Social TV is our choice, our experience, our chance to be more engaged than ever and keep the little flame for creation. Let’s light on.

You probably dream about a quiet place, a rest moment where you can muse and think about ideas, with no necessary goal. Or you would probably have some time, efficient time without being disturbed. No glory, fair enough, just simple life, we forgot. The fact is that, today, too many screens with interactive propositions that blink all over the day, make us fragile, distracted and less efficient. Times have changed, but not obviously for the single “better” side. We used to spend time, having time to discover, doubt, try while we are now, just interrupted, all over each single day. Is it this kind of life we need, want, desire to recover the ability to make good choices? Disturbed we are, troubled with no “cold time” to think deeply or work without being dissipated by ongoing commercials, “friends” requests or redundant news.
Oh I see and know what kind of subject I’m talking about. You probably didn’t have yet the conscient and awareness of it, but we’re immerged with digital signals, that we can’t deal with. Too many messages, too many occurencies, too many interruptions: and that’s the way you work more stressed, losing time anytime you’re disturbed, getting more and more difficulty to work efficiently with business matters, all along without being ongoing interrupted. That’s the sad way of “mainstream information”, a kind of flow you can’t stop and sort of, because it’s now to the reader to make his own opinion about contents and what he can stare at. That’s the bottomline of any “UGC”, where the reference is maybe hard to find and to believe. Can we believe all we receive? Can we trust anyone who “says”? And without even talking about the relevance of information, it’s about the whole “mass”, that flows on and on, every day.
We’re now living in a “microspaces” of times where we can spot, snap and do every little pieces of actions, like medias but like recipients too, where we swallow lots of datas…be careful to digest it!

Finally we could say that “interruption draws creativity, flexibility and curiousity”. So, our brain has just to “teach how to deal with it, like darwinism theory for survivance”. The fact is that no one can really say actually, if there’s a strong progress doing this or in the long term an inefficiancy driving business and modern work to a major change. May we dream of an enjoyable “empty space” soon, maybe not. Up to you, to suffer daily this pollution or change your behavior. Healthier, simplier searching for “better”, more than “more”. Remember it’s worthier to “be”, than to “have”…

You probably remember about M. McLuhan’s theories about media, considering what we mostly hold from an exposure to a “message”, through a “media”, is the media itself, more than the message…Strange but finally, and even it’s more complicated than this simple figure, it shows us the increased complexity of our brain. But now and there, this is not the main item I would like to talk about, but transpose the results in the 2.0 era. But not only. I mean, it’s not only in 2.0 features we could find, what I’m gonna explain.

The rising period where information comes and goes from nowhere, and is spread everywhere by everyone leads to a global cloud of too much information. Different shapes, times and screens, devices, breaks…All around us increases the risk for mistake, misinformation or hoax, disturbing our ability to think about the content and the essence of the message. As we try to navigate into this misfit ocean, we’re usually lazy to get the facts and go to easiness: listen to a famous, well-known star, influencer, relevant speaker and so long. So we get more from “who” than really from “what” or “how”. Here we go, listening a kind of information guru, waiting for holy words, who we don’t remind after. The only thing we can recognize or remember is probably “who” told us, more than the content of the message itself. An incredibly worrying and disappointing fact that means a lot for advertisers. The same effect leading to be aware of “people” like potential medias, the same that creates “value” for people, like medias did before. Why bloggers and influencers are probably difficult to touch/to buy let us more aware of the real contents they deliver: is it because they are famous that contents they provide are interesting or do they really deliver smart contents? Which makes sense?

I do strongly believe we more and more paying attention to who says, than really in the delivered content…A kind of subtile way to believe in icons, influencers, experts moreover but meaning that we must pay double attention to “noise” or information. Elements are probably guided more by the vehicle than the debate. So, the next time, simply ask yourself “whose benefit it is”, and dig deeply to sort what kind of information do we facing, and in the end, who delivered it…Guess you’ll have surprise how naive we can be, when we’re stunned by a so called “expert” and how much we can easily agree without using our brain. The easiness of flow in twitters, blogs, rss…find us in front of the “crowded mass of information”, and who is better than a well known “people” to secure ourselves? Maybe our last instinct of sanity, trying to keep our mind and critical ability enabled!